 All right. Decentralized Autonomous Society. Kevin asks, You've spoken previously about the concept of a DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization. It's exciting to imagine how the model forces us to rethink the reasons for building organizations hierarchically. Now that we have the ability to draw consensus from a group of peers without the need for trusted third parties, it can truly change the way we think about and structure organizations of all kinds. What is your long-term vision of this concept at a societal scale? How do you foresee our societal governance models becoming more decentralized than autonomous? I am aware that we are very far from this world, so I won't be mad if you end up getting it wrong. Thank you so much, Kevin. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, and the ability to have people organize in loose short-term, medium-term, or even long-term associations where the rules are clearly understood and defined by some kind of neutral execution of a smart contract, or a script. Certainly these types of organizations are going to be extremely interesting. I think in most cases we are going to see these being applied for the narrow case of corporate governance, meaning that for-profit short-term endeavors, ad hoc projects, loose coalitions, crowdfunding applications like ICOs that we've seen already, but other types of loose associations of investors or small startup-type organizations can benefit from this kind of decentralized autonomous organization. I think the term decentralized autonomous organization describes the end vision, and the word autonomous really means that it's not being controlled by individuals, but instead it has a set of rules that allow it to operate on its own, so it's not directed by a board of directors or a shareholder vote. It's a loaded set of words, because we don't know exactly how these things are going to play out. Of course, it's a whole spectrum of possible organizational models. You can have things that are very closely held, tightly controlled, but still operate through a set of rules, where essentially what you're doing is you're implementing the voting mechanism of a traditional corporation. The smart contract simply does what an electronic share would do, and a shareholder voting system would do, bail the way to very, very autonomous rule-based systems where no one really is in control, where the participants get to participate in the organization, but they don't get to control it or change their rules. How do we take that up and scale it to a level of society? That's very difficult to see from this perspective, from what we're doing right now, because these technologies are still very mature. We're going to have to see them in small-scale, for-profit, corporate environment associations, and things like that first. Then you might start seeing these be used more generally for governance of decision-making. You could use them for non-profit associations, clubs, and things like that. We could see these new models of organizations emerge that, for example, have to do with political causes, charities, clubs, and things like that. Eventually, these might migrate to types of governance that have to do with society's function within a geography. You might see this type of application for, let's say, a municipality or a town. But it's much harder to do when you're talking about geography, because there are better mechanisms for organizing people in a close geography. At the same time, the problems we have with governance at scale in large geographies like supernational federations, things like the United States or the European Union, or even things like the United Nations, transnational organizations. The problems there are problems of trying to do decision-making at scale that's removed from the people who are affected by that decision-making. The real challenge is, how do you look at representative governance? Do we need representatives to vote on our behalf, or can we have a more direct model? The difference between democracy and demarchy, where you either have representatives voting for you, or you vote directly in all of the matters that come that influence you. You might be voting 20 times a day. Again, these are all interesting models to explore. I think we're very far from them. That doesn't mean the vision isn't valuable. It just means that we have no idea how this is going to play out. As more and more capabilities become available, as more people use this technology and learn this technology, they're going to find different ways to explore it, and come up with ideas that, frankly, we can't even imagine today. Talk about the parasites, and I've mentioned it before, the false walks. Life advances make it come to mind with the last set of management. I started seeing these parasites almost come along again in a vertical fact, if you call these folks parasites. I think a lot of folks are kind of wanting this to come into the discussion. Could you speak to these parasites more kind of sitting in the market? How do we deal with that? What does that mean? That's part of life. We build something good, and because we built something good, the sharks are circling because they're smelling chum. The reason this entire industry has been saturated by sharks is because there's something there of value. There's a lot of scams and a lot of bullshit and a lot of other things floating around, but this is recognition that we've built something really interesting, valuable, and different, and they're desperately trying to buy it, to own it, to get a piece of it. But here's the beauty of it. There's a poison pill at the center of cryptocurrencies, and that is its essence, is decentralization. So if you're an organization that is trying to take that and turn it into your new parasitic source of revenue, the only way to do that is to decentralize your own power. And you can't do that because you're architecturally, corporately, organizationally allergic to decentralizing power. Your entire presence in form of existence is based on centralizing as much power as possible. You can't swallow this pill. It means giving up control. It's as hard as reinventing a corporation on an open source basis. Very few can actually do it, and they do it by shedding a lot of their profit and reinventing themselves when they have no other choice. And yet, while you're reluctant to swallow this pill, you're younger, more nimble competitors you kept out of this industry for decades through regulation and regulatory capture and lawsuits and unfair competition through Congress people, they could swallow it more easily because they're smaller and nimble. They'll decentralize themselves first, and they're going to attack you from left field. The big banks are going to be really slow to move. The third-tier banks, they're going to be giving me some of that good old decentralization, and let's take it and shove it so far up the ass of JP Morgan Chase that they don't know what just happened.